Seeking clarification on what qualifies as 'personal abuse'

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969083#Comment_123969083

You'd be happy with being called a racist, even though you never said anything racist? I don't believe you. I certainly wouldn't be happy and would stand up for myself, and I guarantee you that a majority of people reading this feel the same, whether they would admit it or not is another kettle of fish.

We're not talking about hypothetical anything here. I'm not worrying about something that might happen. It did happen. I was warned for something I didn't do (IMO). If the prevailing opinion is that mods be allowed to rule over their own fora like a personal fiefdom, applying or refusing to apply rules as they see fit, or stretching the definition of words to make the punishment fit the crime, then so be it. But that's 100% a new way of doing things and a guaranteed way to kill the site.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969415#Comment_123969415

It is the case. Some just delete the posts they disagree with. So you don't even see any conflict or differences in opinion.

The charter rules have long been ignored or applied selectively. With a few exceptions, active legal cases etc. Since that could cost money.

There is an irony in arguing that none of this is true while creating a thread with an example of it being true.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969429#Comment_123969429

That is a bit of a false equivalency though isn’t it? Jumping from a person who questions a posters sincerity, to a person being called a racist.

There is another option if you feel that strongly, don’t want to change your style of posting, appreciate variables etc. The option then is simply to delete your account all for the sake of a warning.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969428#Comment_123969428

You are only winding yourself up here, building up your perceived injustice. And all you got is a warning! Wouldn’t it be far more beneficial to accept the warning, note the moderator thread and reasons given than move on?

The reasons given don't match the actions I took. If you were told not to wear a blue shirt in work, and showed up with a yellow shirt, then got a warning for wearing a blue shirt you'd wonder what the fcuk was going on. "trim those sideburns, Strawberry"……..Same story here.

How can I change my behaviour or posting style from being abusive when it wasn't abusive in the first place? Who's to say that the style I change to won't also be considered abusive, even if it isn't? How are people to know where the line is, if the line can be redrawn willy-nilly, even after the fact? The answer is they can't. Purely from a housekeeping point of view, if a mod want people to obey the rules, then the rules need to be clearly displayed from the outset and the interpretation of those rules needs to be consistent. This is what I mean when I'm talking about being fair.

You just said I'm getting too emotionally wrapped up in it. Is that personal abuse? Would it be fair for you to get warned because of it? Of course not, on both counts. If you did, I'd be the first one to fight your corner.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969479#Comment_123969479

No, I don't think so. A false accusation is a false accusation. And again, I never questioned his sincerity, I said he was ignoring inconvenient truths to further his points.

pjohnson

Christ "attack the post not the poster" would decimate the Israel/Palestine thread if enforced.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969482#Comment_123969482

It all depends on tone and context. Wording is important.

Personally if it was me I would ask -

1. Why am I getting so wound up about it.?
2. Is it worth it?

You are also in danger of putting a target on your back by overreacting. Not just by moderators, but some posters will see you as a “soft” target to wind up. Easily riled, just waiting for you to get a ban and warning. And then they will go away laughing. Mission completed.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969476#Comment_123969476

It most certainly is not the case on most forums, and it hasn't ever been the case on Boards, in my experience, since the early 2000s at least. Hence the thread.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969513#Comment_123969513

You know the tone and context, as it was your post. Would you accept a warning and possible and for personal abuse because you said I was too emotionally wrapped up?

Personally if it was me I would ask -

Why am I getting so wound up about it.?

Is it worth it?

I'm not at all wound up. I'm trying determine If I'm right or if the mod's interpretation of personal abuse is right. Like I said, if the consensus is that they were right to warn me for personal abuse for use of "these are not the actions of a serious poster" and saying someone is being intellectually dishonest is attacking the poster, I'll hold my hands up. So far, we have one maybe and one yes, from a poster who wasn't arsed enough to make their own point and asked ChatGPT to do it for them.

And apologies, I know it's from an earlier post, but I forgot to reply……

The cynic in me says if you became a paid subscriber, it might change your reputation among certain mods. And interactions with them if it bothers you THAT much.
Because then you will be a paid consumer of a service. Giving you certain status, and those in charge of the website will be forced to have certain standards towards you that you seem to crave.

If this is the case, and I severely hope it is not, then Boards is even more fcuked than it appears.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969558#Comment_123969558

Well the moderators interpretation stands following review. There is nothing more you can do. Bar two extremes beyond complaining/changing your behaviour
It would be -

1 Delete your account

2 Become a paid member

My theory is you will likely be treated differently if you become a paid member. In tight calls. Sort of like Private Health Insurance v The Medical Card.

Arghus

I suppose, to bring it back to the OP, about the questions the OP was looking for feedback on:

If you're asking whether I think saying that someone isn't a "serious poster" constitutes personal abuse. I think it does, just about.

For two reasons: it is personal, you aren't critiquing their post, you're critiquing them directly… that's an important distinction.

And it is a negative remark.… Okay, it's not egregious abuse, but it's still a pointed personalised remark. And it feels unnecessary. Can the point be made without having to say it?

And in regards to intellectually dishonest. Again, this is a remark about the poster. It is directed towards them. You say you aren't questioning their sincerity, but aren't you to an extent?

To say someone is intellectually dishonest is at least implying that they are aware, at some level, that they are being less than straight in an argument.

I agree you aren't saying they are stupid, but you are accusing them at some level of dishonesty... You aren't saying they are a hypocrite or contradictory, you're using the word dishonest. That's questioning someone's sincerity IMO.

Once again, this also reads as unnecessary. Would it not have been possible to point out the flaws/contradictions in the opposing posters arguments and let that speak for itself?

Would I be hurt if someone referred to me as unserious or intellectually dishonest, probably not: but it depends on the context, but I think if you're asking whether the examples you use qualify as "personal abuse" definitely an argument can be made that, yes, they do.

I see worse examples of it everyday on here, but that's kind of irrelevant to the questions you wanted feedback on IMO.

gormdubhgorm

Just on the OP’s main point of what “personal abuse” is defined as. Even in legal terminology there is debate over terms. With various methods of interpretation of meaning of words.

Boards.ie are just ordinary people who created a website. All their terms are subjective and loose. Left up to moderator discretion. The OP is asking the impossible for a firm and definitive meaning.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969611#Comment_123969611

Following what review?

Flinty997

But the

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969521#Comment_123969521

Not the case on boards? Lol.

If it's not case why does this thread exist.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969730#Comment_123969730

I was under the impression you appealed to a higher up on boards etc? Following conversation with the moderator?

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969616#Comment_123969616

Thanks for the input.

For the sake of clarity, I didn't say "you're not a serious poster" or "don't mind him, he's not a serious poster" or anything like it. I had accused them of cherrypicking bits and pieces that they were responding to and ignoring the rest because they had no response. I mentioned 7 possible destinations and they only mentioned 2 in their reply, ignoring the other 5, and one of the two didn't fit the criteria we were talking about. So 1 out of 7, is what they really responded with. They literally cherrypicked the two that fir the bill, ignored the rest, and then one of the two blew up in their face. My exact words were "You think this proves your point, while ignoring the other 86% of destinations that poke holes in your argument? These are not the actions of a serious person."

It wasn't personal, and I was critiquing their post.

Once again, this also reads as unnecessary. Would it not have been possible to point out the flaws/contradictions in the opposing posters arguments and let that speak for itself?

With regards to being intellectually dishonesty, again, that is what I did. They pretended that I was talking about something that hadn't come up in the conversation, when it was they who had brought it up in the first place. They were feigning ignorance to paint me in a bad light.

I disagree that, just because it has the word 'dishonest' in it that I'm calling them dishonest.

However, thank you for taking the time to give us your POV.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969779#Comment_123969779

No, that's impossible. You cannot appeal a zero point warning, you have to take it and STFU about it, or it becomes a ban.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969778#Comment_123969778

That's not what I said, for the second time.

It most certainly is not the case on most forums, and it hasn't ever been the case on Boards, in my experience, since the early 2000s at least. Hence the thread.

Twice now you have failed to read my posts correctly. I've highlighted the relevant part in the post above, seeing as you're having such difficulty. I said it hasn't [past tense] been the case on Boards, not that it isn't [present tense] the case on Boards.

It hasn't, in the past and this recent warning is a deviation from that, which is why the thread exists.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969784#Comment_123969784

Well that’s it then. End of story.

Rocket_GD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969803#Comment_123969803

You're positing style does seem quite confrontational and may read as aggressive to some people (maybe mods).

seeing as you're having such difficulty

This part was completely unnecessary and seems petty directed at the poster.

Also backs up the point made by another poster here that you can easily be wound up and you're going to have posters baiting you.

Arghus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969783#Comment_123969783

I'm not arguing that it's an extremely wounding comment or anything of that type.

But, I am a bit of a loss about how you can argue that saying "these are not an action of a serious person" isn't a personal remark? It's completely personal: you are referring to a perceived quality of their character directly? That is a personal remark

Fair enough that extra context - which we didn't have - does show that you are critiquing their post and not just them - but that final remark was personalised. Absolutely zero question.

Was it abuse? ... I don't know, open to interpretation I guess, but you can make an argument for it: it certainly wasn't an endorsement.

I also think there's a certain degree of irony here that, among other things, you are looking for clarification or a clear cut definition of what constitutes personal abuse - but yet seem unwilling to agree to any argument that doesn't suit your subjective interpretation. For instance that when you refer to a characteristic of someone's person that you aren't being personal. Or that when you refer to dishonesty that you aren't at some level taking about sincerity.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, just giving you my POV.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969429#Comment_123969429

Did someone call me a racist?

Did someone call you a racist?

Unless I missed something, no they did not. That is 100% hypothetical and completely irrelevant, neither of those situations happened.

To get back to what actually happened, an anonymous moderator gave you a zero point warning on an internet forum that you don't agree with.

Woop de fucking do, wecome to the internet.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969900#Comment_123969900

And that's the way I'm taking it. For the record, I don't think I have ever taken anything on Boards that seriously, lord knows we've all got bigger things to be worrying about than the random comments of an anonymous poster on a discussion site.

Fair enough that extra context - which we didn't have - does show that you are critiquing their post and not just them - but that final remark was personalised. Absolutely zero question.

This is the thrust of my argument. I was critiquing their post, not their character. I was using their words and actions (or lack thereof) to demonstrate that what they were saying was in direct contrast to what they were doing. Their words weren't matching their actions. There is a difference between making something personalised and being abusive. It is categorically impossible to discuss someone's posts without it being personalised……..e.g. you've said the following about me in this most recent post:

 you are referring to a perceived quality of their character……….[you] seem unwilling to accept………when you refer to a characteristic of someone's person that you aren't being personal…..

These are all personalised, yet not a single one could be considered abuse, nor do I take any of them in that way at all, just trying to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

I also think there's a certain degree of irony here that, among other things, you are looking for clarification or a clear cut definition of what constitutes personal abuse - but yet seem unwilling to agree to any argument that doesn't suit your subjective interpretation. For instance that when you refer to a characteristic of someone's person that you aren't being personal. Or that when you refer to dishonesty that you aren't at some level taking about sincerity.

It is my contention that my interpretation isn't subjective, while the mod's interpretation is. I haven't yet seen a cohesive argument that the words I used constituted abuse, you even said so yourself that it's open to interpretation, so it's not as black and white as the mod made it out to be. If I felt that someone made a compelling argument, I'd accept it. I'm unwilling to accept someone's argument just because it's different to my own, they'd have to show me why I should accept it. So far, only an AI chatbot with an incorrect definition has attempted to do that, and failed. Bar yourself, of course, and even you seem to be on the fence about a lot of it.

For example, I accept that the "seeing as you are having difficulty…." remark was an unnecessary jibe, borne more out of frustration that the poster wasn't reading what I was saying correctly, than anything else. So, apologies @Flinty997, no harm meant. If I were warned for that part of the post, there'd be no complaints. If I was warned for calling them a failure because I said "you have failed to read my posts correctly", there would.

It is also my contention that I wasn't referring to anyone's characteristics when I said their actions weren't those of a serious poster. I'm clearly referring to their actions/words/posts, not their character.

And again, calling them intellectually dishonest is in direct reference to their posts, not their person. I'm not saying they aren't a sincere person, I'm saying their words/posts are not sincere, and here's the reasons why……. Calling a whole person unserious vs calling their posts (that I've just highlighted) unserious.

There is a huge, significant difference between the two.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, just giving you my POV.

Of course, no offence taken, it's exactly the input I'm looking for.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969848#Comment_123969848

Acknowledged and agreed, so apologies again to that poster.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969903#Comment_123969903

The racist part is hypothetical, that's literally the point. I'm hypothesising that you'd take issue with being called a racist when you weren't saying anything racist. Which you should, as would I, as well as any right-minded person.

Someone called me personally abusive, when I wasn't, and I'm taking issue with that. For the same reasons, and a few more thrown in for good measure. That's not hypothetical, that actually happened. That's what makes it relevant.

As mentioned earlier, if some other mod gives me a ban further down the line because I have a 'track record' for personal abuse, not a single soul would would entertain the "oh, I wasn't being abusive that time, that's just a mod going off-script" excuse, and nor should they.

You either speak up at the time or you take your medicine. I'm choosing the former. I suspect you would too, if someone called you [blank] without foundation.

Arghus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969996#Comment_123969996

You are conflating something being directed at someone - we can say personalised if you want - and something being a personal remark.

In the examples you outlined of my prior response you say it's personalised. It is directed to you, yes, but those aren't personal remarks: I'm not referring to your character or qualities as a person.

Most replies and commentary on sites like this, or anywhere, are, unless rhetorical, directed at someone. But that doesn't make them personal remarks.

To refer to someone as an "unserious poster" is a personal remark: that's an observation on their character.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969558#Comment_123969558

"a poster who wasn't arsed enough to make their own point and asked ChatGPT to do it for them"

And you're wondering why you get warned? Clearly you don't have the ability to engage civilly with anyone who doesn't agree with you and resort to sniping and indeed 'intellectual dishonesty'. I didn't make my own point? No, you just didn't like it so are now making stuff up to dismiss it.

You've had to even apologise for a personal remark in your own bloody thread complaining that you haven't made any personal remarks.

No surprise really seeing as you still don't understand the difference between accusing someone of being slow to understand and accusing someone of deliberately being slow to understand.